TiVo : Poor choice of Channels

[andy_m]

They're not all new users though, den. I have a TiVo, and am one of the million, but I was already a Virgin TV subscriber when I got it.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by andy_m

They're not all new users though, den. I have a TiVo, and am one of the million, but I was already a Virgin TV subscriber when I got it.

Yes you are right but they are still attracting more TV subscribers then Sky and that tells you when it comes to a full all round bundle package Virgin quite clearly have the advantage.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Top banana

That's the point, they are struggling to attract new tv customers so are jumping on the net solution,

Now TV was a very good move by Sky and adding it to the Youview platform was an even better move; hardly a 'jumping on' move.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by denphone

Yes you are right but they are still attracting more TV subscribers then Sky and that tells you when it comes to a full all round bundle package Virgin quite clearly have the advantage.

yes VM better on all things apart from number of channels Den mate only ones i really want from sky is the missing sports HD ones but know sky never gonna let that happen grrrrrrrrrrrr@sky

Originally Posted by muppetman11

But your statement was that content providers will start to deliver their content direct to the customer over the Internet , if that's true why will any of us need a pay TV STB a simple subscription free Roku will do the job. How many Netflix subscribers access their content on a pay TV STB ? A very small percentage if any , they also use the service across a multitude of ISP's.

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Care to post us these figures

Its on the net look at each companies invstor relations pages where you will see a link to their results. Its also on cf somewhere. Each companies latest results are out in a couple of weeks or simply search bskyb and click news where there is already speculation that their latest tv adds will be poor.

Sky make lots of cash but are struggling to attract new custom hence the push for triple play

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Top banana

Its on the net look at each companies invstor relations pages where you will see a link to their results. Its also on cf somewhere. Each companies latest results are out in a couple of weeks or simply search bskyb and click news where there is already speculation that their latest tv adds will be poor.

Sky make lots of cash but are struggling to attract new custom hence the push for triple play

I've already looked Sky attracted 10,100 new TV subscribers from Jun 11 to Jun 12 in the same period VM TV numbers remained unchanged however they did take their TIVO userbase from 34,000 in Q2 11 to 939,000 which is a phenomenal achievement they also added 38,000 to a pay TV tier presumably from M TV again impressive , Sky upgraded 521,000 to HD and added another 152,00 multiroom subs. The VM presentation reported a net cable customer loss of 15,000 , Sky reported a total customer increase of 312,000 across all its product range.

Both companies TV results would suggest Pay TV subscriber numbers have reached a plateau , however both companies are producing good figures by enticing customers to upgrade to premium products.

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I've already looked Sky attracted 10,100 new TV subscribers from Jun 11 to Jun 12 in the same period VM TV numbers remained unchanged however they did take their TIVO userbase from 34,000 in Q2 11 to 939,000 which is a phenomenal achievement they also added 38,000 to a pay TV tier presumably from M TV again impressive , Sky upgraded 521,000 to HD and added another 152,00 multiroom subs. The VM presentation reported a net cable customer loss of 15,000 , Sky reported a total customer increase of 312,000 across all its product range.

Both companies TV results would suggest Pay TV subscriber numbers have reached a plateau , however both companies are producing good figures by enticing customers to upgrade to premium products.

Bloody hell you should get a job in the sky spin department. In the last qtr vm who cover half the country added 21k tv customers, sky, who cover all of the country added 20k customers.

There were posts saying vm are falling behind on the tv side the customer numbers say different.

Btw, Bank of America are speculating that sky will have their poorest tv performance for a decade, estimating growth of 14k.

Lets see how accurate they are?

We're happy with our choice of channels on VM. Had to subscribe to $ky Sports to get the F1 but it's worth the extra for darts, snooker etc. Don't need the movie channels as we don't watch many films. There's nothing on Atlantic that appeals to us, so all good

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by Top banana

Bloody hell you should get a job in the sky spin department. In the last qtr vm who cover half the country added 21k tv customers, sky, who cover all of the country added 20k customers.

There were posts saying vm are falling behind on the tv side the customer numbers say different.

Btw, Bank of America are speculating that sky will have their poorest tv performance for a decade, estimating growth of 14k.

Lets see how accurate they are?

Have read the figures if there is one person on here who is even handed its Muppetman.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Top banana

There were posts saying vm are falling behind on the tv side the customer numbers say different.

Just because people choose VM over Sky, does not prove VM are not falling behind on the TV side.

TV is only one part of the total services offered, and people will make a choice to put up with poorer TV because everything else on VM is better than Sky.

If VM have considerably fewer channels than Sky, and the gap is constantly growing, then VM are falling behind sky on the TV side. Whether people are prepared to put up with it for other VM benefits is another matter.

There wouldn't be complaints about missing channels if they weren't falling behind.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Just because people choose VM over Sky, does not prove VM are not falling behind on the TV side.

TV is only one part of the total services offered, and people will make a choice to put up with poorer TV because everything else on VM is better than Sky.

If VM have considerably fewer channels than Sky, and the gap is constantly growing, then VM are falling behind sky on the TV side. Whether people are prepared to put up with it for other VM benefits is another matter.

There wouldn't be complaints about missing channels if they weren't falling behind.

well the sky missing channels is because they are being withheld by sky so what can VM do about that nothing sadly

[Safcftm21]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I've already looked Sky attracted 10,100 new TV subscribers from Jun 11 to Jun 12 in the same period VM TV numbers remained unchanged however they did take their TIVO userbase from 34,000 in Q2 11 to 939,000 which is a phenomenal achievement they also added 38,000 to a pay TV tier presumably from M TV again impressive , Sky upgraded 521,000 to HD and added another 152,00 multiroom subs. The VM presentation reported a net cable customer loss of 15,000 , Sky reported a total customer increase of 312,000 across all its product range.

Both companies TV results would suggest Pay TV subscriber numbers have reached a plateau , however both companies are producing good figures by enticing customers to upgrade to premium products.

Looking at these numbers do you now think that VM should stop spending a massive amount of money of marketing and spend it on new channels. I alone get about three pieces of mail a week from them and as I work in the industry I can tell you this kind of thing doesn't come cheap. If they have increased subscribers to the extent you've stated then maybe it should now start looking after it's current customers? Just a thought.

Also what exactly is all the hype about the Tivo box that you don't get with the sky box, other than three tuners? I willing to learn here in-case I'm missing out on some wonders that I've not found.

[Chad]

Originally Posted by Dave42

well the sky missing channels is because they are being withheld by sky so what can VM do about that nothing sadly

But are they?

http://corporate.sky.com/media/press..._upc_agreement

UPC managed to agree a deal which included Sky News HD and Sky Sports News HD.

Rob Webster, Director of Sky’s Commercial Group, comments: "As we continue to increase our investment in high-quality pay-TV content, we’re keen to distribute our channels as broadly as possible to widen our reach and enable more households to enjoy some of the great programming Sky has to offer.

"This agreement demonstrates how through successful negotiation we can create value for the companies involved in addition to real benefits for consumers."

I'm sure if Virgin offer the right price SKY would consider giving them access to pretty much any channel. However seeing Virgin still don't have deals in place for Animal Planet HD, Eurosport 2HD, Cartoon Network HD, Crime & Investigation Network HD, Disney Channel HD, Disney Cinemagic HD, Disney XD HD, E! HD, ESPN America HD, MTV HD, Nat Geo Wild HD, Nickelodeon HD, TCM HD, Universal Channel HD and various popular standard definition channels I think I know who is firmly to blame.....VIRGIN

There must good reasons why Virgin are so far behind SKY when it comes to HD. Either Virgin don't value the channels, or they aren't prepared to pay the asking price.

I'd be able to buy the whole SKY withholding argument if Virgin were snapping up channels from launch from other broadcasters, but they don't. Some of the above channels launched over 4 years ago, what on Earth is holding Virgin back?

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Chad

But are they?

http://corporate.sky.com/media/press..._upc_agreement

UPC managed to agree a deal which included Sky News HD and Sky Sports News HD.

Rob Webster, Director of Sky’s Commercial Group, comments: "As we continue to increase our investment in high-quality pay-TV content, we’re keen to distribute our channels as broadly as possible to widen our reach and enable more households to enjoy some of the great programming Sky has to offer.

"This agreement demonstrates how through successful negotiation we can create value for the companies involved in addition to real benefits for consumers."

I'm sure if Virgin offer the right price SKY would consider giving them access to pretty much any channel. However seeing Virgin still don't have deals in place for Animal Planet HD, Eurosport 2HD, Cartoon Network HD, Crime & Investigation Network HD, Disney Channel HD, Disney Cinemagic HD, Disney XD HD, E! HD, ESPN America HD, MTV HD, Nat Geo Wild HD, Nickelodeon HD, TCM HD, Universal Channel HD and various popular standard definition channels I think I know who is firmly to blame.....VIRGIN

There must good reasons why Virgin are so far behind SKY when it comes to HD. Either Virgin don't value the channels, or they aren't prepared to pay the asking price.

I'd be able to buy the whole SKY withholding argument if Virgin were snapping up channels from launch from other broadcasters, but they don't. Some of the above channels launched over 4 years ago, what on Earth is holding Virgin back?

tell me who got sky atlantic sky sports 3+4HD and F1HD oh yeah no one but sky so Rob Webster why is sky with holding channels then with what you said so to answer you Chad yes they are

[alwaysabear]

Dave their are other channels as Chad has listed which have nothing to do with Sky yet we still do not have them. So who else do we blame but Virgin for not having these channels.